Does anyone recognize this hand sign?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


How did you miss that Ashkenaz referred to the first son of Gomer? I was trying to make a point, that the term is older than the influx of Jews into central Europe. That being said, the history of those Jews, is much older than the 7th century travel boom..

Where did those Jews come from? Where was their history? Did they just poof out of thin air during this time, and say "Hey, we just came from nowhere, but we wanna live in central Europe now!"

No, that is not how it happened.

How many times have I had to say; I am talking about the origins relating to Ashkenaz.

Where did he go? What did he do? Where did he live?

All very pertinent questions, because the people that we consider to be Jews today, are not real Jews, they are frauds, they are Ashkenazi, which some have said that they came from the Khazar tribe...

I will however await your next reply before continuing.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
How did you miss that Ashkenaz referred to the first son of Gomer...

Who gives a crap about Ashkenaz? The term 'Ashkenazi Jew' is one that does not date to Jesus' time, end of friggin story.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


The point I am trying to make is, if the people we think of as Jews now, are really Ashkenazi Jews; frauds. Then, what kind of Jew was Jesus Christ? Because that means at some point they exchanged places, or throughout history these people have been claiming to be Jews, but really are fraudsters, just like Revelations clearly indicates..

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
The point I am trying to make is, if the people we think of as Jews now, are really Ashkenazi Jews; frauds.

I do not care about your point. Do you know why? It is irrelevant. We are not talking about your contemporary viewpoint on who is or is not a Jew but whether Jesus was Jewish (he was).

Then, what kind of Jew was Jesus Christ?

One from Roman Judea. You know, the place where the Jews lived.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Whatever A.M. We will continue this at another time

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
What constitutes as a Jew vs Ashkenazi?

Yes, it is relevant.

Ashkenazi Jews did not exist until the 7th century which was, by my rough calculations, a couple of years, give or take, after Jesus died. Your point is totally irrelevant.

NO it is not irrelevant, the Ashkenazi are "Jew,s" they invented the word, however Jesus the judean was not a "Jew"

They did this for political reasons so they could claim israel, the Ashkenazi are "Jews" but they are not the Israelites spoken of in the Bible.

Well in talking about arguments between masons perhaps first we should say that Freemasons inherited those symbols from the operative masons. Freemasons are only a shadow of the ancient masons of old who arguably were the true masons ie it was them who were privy to the esoteric knowledge that modern Freemasons haven't a clue about.

Originally posted by LUXUS
NO it is not irrelevant, the Ashkenazi are "Jew,s" they invented the word...

Holy Jesus and the Baby Jesus. If anyone can post a link to where Jews of Jesus' era referred to themselves as 'Ashkenazi Jews' then you will have succinctly proven your point, until then you are not even remotely close to having done so.


]

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You don't understand what we are saying A.M. We think of currently today, that the people we consider Jews, are not real Jews, but Ashkenazi Jews, frauds. This means that the Jews of Jesus time we a separate branch, the 'true' Jew so to speak. Maybe just the Palestinians who the Ashkenazi's have been trying to uproot?

Palestinians and Jews share DNA

History is written by the victor, and I highly suspect these people have meddled with history very much. They are attempting to assert themselves into 'The Holy Land', when it does not really belong to them...

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
You don't understand what we are saying A.M.

I do understand and it is not RELEVANT. The conversation was whether Jesus was Jewish (he was) not that you and others think that some modern Jews are not Jewish. Is everyone suffering from cranial density disorder?

This means that the Jews of Jesus time we a separate branch, the 'true' Jew so to speak.

Which would make Jesus Jewish as he was a 'Jew of Jesus time' which is what I have been saying the entire time.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I'm just attempting to discern a label between "Jews" and Jews.

That is why I continued to bring up the whole Ashkenazi debate. If they are who we call Jews today, then I was wondering what the old Jews really were...

So yes, Jesus may have been a Jew, but were they really called 'Jews' or was there a more appropriate demographic label for them?

This guy covers the topic very well although it is a video and AM seams to think any information that is in video format is instantly worthless, but I challenge you to find flaws in the research he has done!

reply to post by LUXUS


Or for those who are Youtube wary like AM, I have a bit of reading material for you.

Jesus was a Kalani, NOT a Jew

In his first book on Sleep he relates of Aristotle, his master, that he had a discourse with a Jew; and his own account was that what this Jew said merited admiration and showed philosophicalerudition. To speak of the race first, the man was a Jew by birth and came from Cœlesyria [Palestine]. These Jews are derived from the philosophers of India. In India the philosophers call themselves Kalani, and in Syria Jews, taking their name from the country they inhabit, which is Judea; the name of their capital is rather difficult to pronounce: they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, who had been the guest of many people, had come down from the highland to the seashore [Pergamus]. He was a Greek not only in language, but in soul; so much so that, when we happened to be in Asia in about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us and with other persons of learning in order to test our wisdom. And as he had had intercourse with a large number of sages, he imparted to us more knowledge of his own."

Aristotle - Jewish Encyclopedia

This almost explicitly states that the 'true Jews' were in fact Palestinians...

To speak of the race first, the man was a Jew by birth and came from Cœlesyria [Palestine].

Jews came from India

Lots of good information in this last link.

I personally think they did. You might research Flavius' account in his history of the Jews which states that the Jewish people were descended from Indian brahmins, who were Brahma-devotees; the name, he says, was later corrupted to "Abraham" (intriguingly, Ab-brahma means literally "Father Brahma" in Sanskrit). If I recall, there are records of the same in both Greek and Persian sources as well, though I can't recall their names, off-hand.

Another good link : Palestine Myths

As I understand it there has been a few waves of tribes entering Israel and claiming to be Israelites. Obviously the land was promised to Israelites so in order to claim you have a right to occupy those lands you must also claim to be an Israelite.

We know that Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt where the Pharaoh was keeping them captive against their will. Moses realises that he is a Iserlite and so is upset to see the way his people are treated. You know the story so I'm not going to go into the details of the magical battle which took place but the Israelites are eventually lead to the holy lands and given the land of Israel for their people.

Fast forward to the time of Jesus and it is clear by then that Israel is now occupied by those who are true Israelites and also those who are not but call themselves Israelites for political reasoned (to justify occupation of those lands)
I don't know the ratio but it could be that even in Jesus time the true Israelites could have been a minority in those lands.

"I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan"

The above makes it clear that there is a group of people claiming to be "Jews" (more correctly Israelites) who are not but rather imposters.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
I'm just attempting to discern a label between "Jews" and Jews.

Your personal musings on someone's religious persuassion is neither relevant or germain to my comments.

That is why I continued to bring up the whole Ashkenazi debate. If they are who we call Jews today, then I was wondering what the old Jews really were...

Jews.

So yes, Jesus may have been a Jew, but were they really called 'Jews' or was there a more appropriate demographic label for them?

May have been a Jew? The province was called Judea. What the hell do you think it meant?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Or for those who are Youtube wary like AM, I have a bit of reading material for you.

Jesus was a Kalani, NOT a Jew

People like me who are 'youtube wary' are also biblebelievers.org wary.

I expected much better from you than this juevenile tripe.

This almost explicitly states that the 'true Jews' were in fact Palestinians...

Roman Judea is Palestine. Jesus frickin Christ. Does anyone actually read real history books anymore?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


That's a bit unfair now AM, I left you other links than Biblebelievers.org, however I wasn't aware that it was a no-no.

Care to comment on the information in the other assorted links?

However, if you concede that Roman Judea is Palestine, that would mean that the 'real Jews' are actually Palestinians correct? Which this would circle back to why we have another group of people, calling themselves Jews, who are attempting to forcefully remove the Palestinians from their holy land.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
That's a bit unfair now AM, I left you other links than Biblebelievers.org, however I wasn't aware that it was a no-no.

Care to comment on the information in the other assorted links?

No, it is totally fair. Biblebelivers is crap, just as unexplainedmysteries is crap. The other source says nothing about Jews of Jesus' time refering to themselves as Ashkenazi.

However, if you concede that Roman Judea is Palestine...

It is not a 'concession', it is historical fact. This does nothing however to support your point of the existance of your so-called Ashkenazi Jews in the time of Christ.

Still waiting on a reputable source........

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

It is not a 'concession', it is historical fact. This does nothing however to support your point of the existance of your so-called Ashkenazi Jews in the time of Christ.

You are asking me to prove something that I never said :/

What I have said, is that the people we think of today as Jews are really Ashkenazi, very same ones occupying Israel right now. This means that they have been perpetrating themselves as frauds for a while now, or that their infiltration was very recent. I'm not saying that the 'Jews' in Roman Judea of Jesus time were Ashkenazi; never said that. However, my assertion is that the 'Jews' occupying Israel right now, attempting to push out the Palestinians, are frauds, Ashkenazi. In retrospect, I am suggesting that the Jews of Jesus time, were actually the people we know of today, as Palestinians...

I do not care for your opinion on either site; I am asking for refutation of the evidence provided therein, if you can not provide that, fine, we will move on.

However, declaring a website 'crap' doesn't hold water. You gotta explain why the material INSIDE is crap...Unexplainedmysteries was a forum link, very much like ATS is a forum. Way to hold a double standard bud...Regardless of that standard; I would still like a refutation of the information provided therein, granted that you can provide one after actually reading it this time around.

What about my link : Palestinian Myths?
What about my ex-quote of Aristotle from the Jewish Encyclopedia? Aristotle - JE

In his first book on Sleep he relates of Aristotle, his master, that he had a discourse with a Jew; and his own account was that what this Jew said merited admiration and showed philosophicalerudition. To speak of the race first, the man was a Jew by birth and came from Cœlesyria [Palestine]. These Jews are derived from the philosophers of India. In India the philosophers call themselves Kalani, and in Syria Jews, taking their name from the country they inhabit, which is Judea; the name of their capital is rather difficult to pronounce: they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, who had been the guest of many people, had come down from the highland to the seashore [Pergamus]. He was a Greek not only in language, but in soul; so much so that, when we happened to be in Asia in about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us and with other persons of learning in order to test our wisdom. And as he had had intercourse with a large number of sages, he imparted to us more knowledge of his own."

Which this excerpt states that the true Jews were born in Palestine, and were derived from the Philosophers of India, where they called themselves Kalani. In Syria, they called themselves Jews, taking the name from the country they inhabited, which you so eloquently stated : Judea...

Neither of these points have you commented on.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by LUXUS
...I am a follower of Christ

Who happened to be a Zionist Jew.....

er...no.

Sorry to pop the bubble..he wasn't.

First Zionist congress was in Basel in 1897,

More, he didn't need to be a Zionist in his day. The ( biblical ) Babylonian exile in 586 BCE had ended by 538 BCE and the Jewish people were allowed to return to Jerusalem. There was no need to ' long for Mt Zion' aka no Zionists, when most dispersed populations either chose to remain in their host countries or where busy standing on home soil.

The second diaspora didn't happen until 66 CE - so Jews were still in Jerusalem during his lifetime and were only exiled after had been dead 30 years....some, not all to go on to become Zionists,



Ro